gizmodo.com: Today's moviegoers are a jaded bunch—it seems to require 3D visuals and advanced audio systems just to get a rise out of them. But it wasn't always this tough in Tinseltown; there was once a time when something as basic as color film was sufficient to blow an audience's collective mind.
6 comments:
it is interesting to imagine the process of the development of technicolor. I think a lot of times today audiences can take advantage of the fact that everything they watch is in color and HD when in reality it is a relatively new development.
With its role in entertainment I am curious as to how much artistic ability was put on a single film. In other words, how many people painted or tinted the negatives in the beginning? Were there more people involved on a movie then or now?
I find it interesting how so many of the old special effects were created by manipulating the physical film the movie was captured. It would be interesting to know how the invention and development of color film in post-production affected the creation of colored cameras. I also wonder why Coppola chose to use technicolor for The Godfather over some of the other methods available at the time.
The amount of effort that went into hand-shading each individual cell is bewildering, as is the evolution of film coloring in general. I further researched what the first technicolor film was, and found out that 'The Gulf Between' came out in 1917. That's not even a century ago. I also discovered that the majority of people seem to think that The Wizard of Oz was the first colored movie ever. That's a bit disheartening, that some believe that colored films just 'came about' in 1939. That is how the general public thinks though... even today. Things aren't a process, they're a product.
I know that color has benefited the film industry greatly, but the beautiful simplicity of the black and white classics should not be forgotten. You couldn't convince an audience that a brutal murder was occurring using digital affects in those days. Then, they would focus on the murderer's eyes. They would leave the gruesomeness to the audiences' imagination, which can be even worse than digital effects. There's this one scene in 'Miracle on 34th Street', where the little girl has offered Kris a piece of gum and he is trying to blow a bubble. The camera stays on her eyes as they get bigger and bigger until we hear a pop and cut to him picking gum out of his beard. It is so simple, so clear, and so well done.
The point is this: just because we advance technologically does not mean we should exploit it. We should use the new technology when it is necessary... not to prove that we can. That's what comes to mind when I think of the steamrolling entity that is Hollywood. We began with people hand coloring cells and look where we are now. Those techniques should not be tossed aside; the methods should not be forgotten.
It's truly remarkable to see where film all started from. I couldn't imagine having to be one of the original film artists who had to paint each frame individually. Even the development that came later didn't seem to improve the efficiency by much. Its kinda fun to imagine what the world would be like if film was never developed.
I am currently taking a class in Color Reproduction and Management and have learned all about the advances in technology. For me, it seems that we have grown accustomed to the high intensity of colors, definition, and even 3D objects, but growing up with this change, I feel that we also lack the quality in the stories of movies that I used to enjoy as a kid. If there was a movie like the Wizard of Oz that was just as amazing visually and story wise, then I wouldnt be saying that I miss the old stuff. I feel that we need all of this to be satisfied today. With all the action movies and no substance, I need a little more to be entertained. Besides, depending on what TV or monitor you are watching it on the colors can be way off digitally. Not like we are perfect with color yet. But we were better at stories back in the day.
I'm a real fan of all the articles lately that dwell into the unseen world behind the camera. People nowadays take film for granted so often that sometimes they forget about all the labor a simple movie can implore. Often I find myself being snickered at when I tell people that my dream is to work in movies. Usually I reply with "Well, somebody has to make them".
This article really helps in my quest to understand as much as possible about the film industry. It is probably most important to know where the industry has come from so as to get a better view of where it might be taking us.
Post a Comment